About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
. they also want us to begin to balance the books just like we did under president clinton with a sensible, balanced approach, one that led to increasing wages across the board, increasing productivity, increasing employment, and a budget surplus in 2000 before president george w. bush took over. last year we cook a step in that direction. we cut $1 trillion in federal spending, we don't hear much about it particularly from the other side of the aisle. but what it means is that every discretionary program will see less funding for the next decade, which will have a huge impact on my state and every state in this country. now, if we're going to cut spending on education, research, and transportation to the tune of approximately $1 trillion, i think most americans recognize that the other side of the equation has to be considered. revenue needs to be part of the balance plan to reduce the debt. and the simple fact of the matter is that virtually every expert panel and commentator has said clearly in order to reduce the deficit to a sustainable level, revenues have to go up. it's a matter of
clinton and state counselors have been engaging for some time, and that is can we get a better answer than we have had in the past two how a new rise in power comes to the international system. and can we do so without running significant risks or indeed fall into conflict. >> thanks. please. >> i agree with everything the undersecretary has said your, and, in fact, admiral sam locklear underscore those pushes a couple days ago in australia. talking about engagement and that strategic trust. but it's interesting that the chinese tend to look at the american, ma asia pacific give it a sort of a continuing strategy. which speaks to the inability to really communicate with strategic effect. and i think you touched, steve, on a very important piece which was a seniority complex and if i can put it that way. china has felt that they were abused by major powers to the 19th century and well into the 20 century, and that has an interesting counterbalance, which is a seemed a bit of a superiority complex about the solutions that they are building on how china images as a global power. the disconten
representative cole if we restore the clinton tax rates today than in ten years, 2022, we have the deficit where it should be. >> guest: he is certainly correct to generate a great deal more revenue. if we did that let's say they made for under $50,000 that is a 2,000-dollar tax increase and again i don't think the president wants to do that. he said he doesn't want to do that our side doesn't want to do that. you know, going back to the clinton tax rate, and remember the average american family has taken a terrific hit. the median household income for years ago when the president became the president was around $54,000 a year and is about 50 now. so this portion of the population which is gotten squeezed tremendously i don't think adding an extra tax at the 98 percent is going to, number one, be very helpful to the more helpful to the economic growth. number two it's how much you want the folks to pay? so again, freezing those tax rates with an overwhelming majority of americans is a smart thing to do, we ought to do it and both sides say they want to. >> host: and you said earlier on -- >> gue
president clinton to cut tax rates. many democrats opposed him then because the tax cuts were unfair, favoring the highest-income americans. to overcome that obstacle, the republicans resorted to a parliamentary technique, budget reconciliation, a maneuver that allowed for passage of their tax cuts but forced them to expire after 2010, at the end of the ten-year budget window. so we scroll forward to 2010. as 2010 ended, president obama and many democrats in congress, including myself, wanted to extend the tax cuts for middle-class families but let rates on income above $200,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a family revert to the clinton era levels. our senate republican friends filibustered that effort, refusing to allow the middle-class tax cut without a tax cut for the highest incomes as well. their hostage strategy worked that time and the president and senate democrats reluctantly agreed to extend the tax cuts for two more years. so now the two years is up and these tax rates are again set to expire. that's why senate democrats passed the middle-class tax cuts act in july.
chief of staff for president clinton -- "democrats must move on entitlements and a cliff deal. he said we're going to have to reduce the cost of entitlement programs. senator conrad, the chairman of the budget committee, said we need, we absolutely need to enact fundamental reform in our entitlement programs. he was warning that social security is -- quote -- "headed for insolvency" and senator durbin said ignoring entitlement reform is not a responsible approach. to be sure these programs last, and this is a good time to look at both revenue and spending and surely in a senate that works like the senate should work, we can find out how to do both of those things. my friend from wyoming just talked about the death tax, the estate tax. this is another area for all the reasons he mentioned that we need to look at doing something about this tax before it goes back to the taxable levels of ten years ago. there are two million family farms. our farms and ranches in the united states -- two million and 98% of them, almost 2 million, are owned by individuals, family partnerships and family co
president bush, president clinton, second president bush, now president obama. none of those other presidents were treated in the way this president is treated. it's something senate democrats have never done in a lame duck session, whether after a presidential or midterm election. in fact, the senate democrats allowed votes on 20 of president george w. bush's judicial nominees, including three circuit court nominees in the lame duck session after the election in 2002. i remember i was the chairman of the judiciary committee. i moved forward on those votes, including one very controversial circuit court nominee. the senate proceeded to confirm judicial nominees in lame duck sessions after the elections in 2004 and 2006. actually, in 2006, we confirmed another circuit court nominee. we proceeded to confirm 19 judicial nominees in lame duck sessions after the election of 2010, including five circuit court nominees. the reason i'm not listing confirmations for the lame duck session at the end of 2008 is because that year we proceeded to confirm the last ten judicial nominees approved
clinton has made empowering women and important part of her diplomatic priorities and i support her efforts. for the united states who do not need to implement additional legislation in order to be in full compliance with the convention. laws such as the civil rights act, title ix strength in the u.s. position in the convention and our leadership could lead to other countries adopting similar protections for disabled women. most importantly i'm reminded of the veterans who have returned from the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the brave veterans who served in all the places we've asked them to go, who advance the interest and ideals of the united states. we owe them a debt for their service. any return with severe burns, some requiring lifetime care. i would like to just read a statement from one of the veterans that appeared in front of the foreign relations committee, and disabled marine veteran john kerry. this is what he said. and i quote here in 1968 i arrived in the non-assigned to first battalion 27th marines have said infantry platoon commander. five months later i was shot an
that president was in cambodia right after the election. he was in burma. secretary clinton moved widely throughout the region as does secretary panetta. and the amount of activities that i do and my forces do have been a prompt jump in what we've done in the past, and we're looking for opportunities to do more exercise. we're doing more of those things already. i think it's visible to our allies. i think it's visible to our partners. not to be invisible to the region. we also want to jump, where's the next summary our aircraft carrier, that's always the sake of. and we will, over time as you heard secretary panetta said, we will rebalance our navy towards the pacific, and i party mentioned in my opening remarks, we are rapidly moving our most capable assets in the region because of some of the ballistic missile defense will be facing of those types of things. so i think it's not about one thing. it's about a holistic approach, and what if you on the military side is only one aspect of a. it's got to be tied to what's happening in the economic side in what's happening in the diplomatic s
in northern mali at our peril. in fact, secretary clinton has recently said that mali has now become a powder keg of potential instability in the region and beyond. the top american military commander in africa, general carter hamm, said publicly just this week that al qaeda's operating terrorist training camps in northern mali and providing arms, explosives and financing to other terrorist groups in the region. so i believe it's critical that the united states have a strong and comprehensive policy to deal with this threat. i'm concerned that the current u.s. approach may not be forward leaning enough to address all three crises -- security, political and humanitarian -- in a coordinated, comprehensive and effective way at the same time. given the compelling u.s. interest in stability and security and good governance in mali, we must ensure we don't miss the bigger picture of what this situation means for the future of mali, to our allies, and to our security. the u.n. security council is now considering what they call a concept of operations for an african-led military operation. the u.s. c
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9